In 5-4 decision, majority finds that damages to class not adequately defined.

On the same day that the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Defense of Marriage Act case, the highest court in the land has issued a decision (PDF) in a class-action lawsuit involving a group of Comcast customers in Philadelphia.

The court ruled in favor of Comcast on Wednesday in a 5-4 decision. The petitioners argued that Comcast was monopolizing the Philadelphia market and therefore was charging higher-than-normal prices given its market position. The cable giant has denied the allegations.

The suing customers (who wanted $875 million in damages) said Comcast swapped territories and subscribers with competitors to ensure it could control the market and charge higher prices.

The court denied the petition in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia on the grounds that the customers didn’t properly outline an adequate method for issuing damages to the thousands of customers. Legal experts believe that the decision could have further implications for narrowing the definition of similar class action lawsuits in the future.

“For all we know, cable subscribers in Gloucester County may have been overcharged because of petitioners’ alleged elimination of satellite competition (a theory of liability that is not capable of classwide proof),” Justice Scalia wrote. “While subscribers in Camden County may have paid elevated prices because of petitioners’ increased bargaining power vis-à-vis content providers (another theory that is not capable of classwide proof); while yet other subscribers in Montgomery County may have paid rates produced by the combined effects of multi­ple forms of alleged antitrust harm; and so on. The per­mutations involving four theories of liability and 2 million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless.”

However, there are related cases pending in the Chicago and Boston metro areas.

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

No, because it's not about a law being broken. It's because the class is too broad and needs to be narrowed. "Comcast is overcharging because X" when X == infinite reasons is just too broad. That's what they're saying

Have you ever received notice of a class action lawsuit you may be eligible for? Notice how they never say "You drove a Chevy before. You can get money." It usually says "We have record that you owned a Chevy Malibu between 1999 and 2002." (narrow 1) "If you had the intake manifold repaired at any time, you may be eligible for compensation." (narrow 2)

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

IANAL, but my understanding is more that all those people shouldn't have been lumped into the same class for the reason you cite, ergo this lawsuit would have been perfectly OK if it was only the subset of people who were affected because of the shutdown of their satellite provider or whatnot. The only effect I see of this ruling is making it harder to set up idiotically broad class action suits, which typically only benefit the lawyers anyways.

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

I don't have Comcast nor do I think their rates are fair, but it seems that they did beat the system on this one. I still believe that it's up to the plaintive to prove the damages, who gets them and what amount they should get.

Seems like a technicality, rightfully so, and they avoided ruling on the "spirit" of the class action. I would think that if you were going before SCOTUS, you would be aware and perhaps better prepared. This is something I did not want to see given over to the cable behemoths, technicality or no.

It looks like we are all getting mad because the lawyers screwed this one up. Even more so the people constantly screw themselves by not using their buying power. You know because we all just HAVE to have cable to watch XYZ. Living in the Philly area, DON'T USE COMCAST! I have dropped ALL cable and have been better for it.

The buyers have the power, but like morons choose not to use it. Redo the class action suit and try again. In the meantime stop paying for their crap and watch the price drop. If not, there are so many others things to do in life that watching TV is not high on the list of "must haves".

I'm not so convinced that this could be easily filed under "SCOTUS sides with corporations... again!"

It actually makes sense. If a class-action lawsuit was brought against ComCast with inadequately defined damages, it would most likely be thrown out - which would be an even bigger victory for ComCast.

So I look at this as SCOTUS saying "you should make sure you have your shit in order before filing the lawsuit."

It looks like we are all getting mad because the lawyers screwed this one up. Even more so the people constantly screw themselves by not using their buying power. You know because we all just HAVE to have cable to watch XYZ. Living in the Philly area, DON'T USE COMCAST! I have dropped ALL cable and have been better for it.

The buyers have the power, but like morons choose not to use it. Redo the class action suit and try again. In the meantime stop paying for their crap and watch the price drop. If not, there are so many others things to do in life that watching TV is not high on the list of "must haves".

It also applies to cable Internet, which is a lot more difficult to do without.

How does one eliminate satellite competition? Did they set up a jamming field or something? If one provider went out of business, there is NOTHING preventing them from going and using another provider.

You know because we all just HAVE to have cable to watch XYZ. Living in the Philly area, DON'T USE COMCAST! I have dropped ALL cable and have been better for it.

The buyers have the power, but like morons choose not to use it. Redo the class action suit and try again. In the meantime stop paying for their crap and watch the price drop. If not, there are so many others things to do in life that watching TV is not high on the list of "must haves".

Comcast is the sole provider of cable and internet in the area. Your "my solution is the best solution for all" argument is just a tad bit rude, naive and ignorant. People depend on cable and internet for entertainment, and information. They've likely invested quite a bit of money in it as well. Tossing it aside because you think it's a fair business practice for Comcast to gouge customers is pretty outrageous.

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

IANAL, but my understanding is more that all those people shouldn't have been lumped into the same class for the reason you cite, ergo this lawsuit would have been perfectly OK if it was only the subset of people who were affected because of the shutdown of their satellite provider or whatnot. The only effect I see of this ruling is making it harder to set up idiotically broad class action suits, which typically only benefit the lawyers anyways.

They aren't saying that people shouldn't have been lumped into the same class. SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs weren't able to specifically isolate damages to a specific cause (anti-competitive behavior preventing the entrance of over-builders in this case.) They had a model for damages, but it only spoke to the net effect of anti-competitive behavior and not the lack of over-builders entering the market specifically, which is why they ruled in favor of Comcast.

As far as I can tell, the OP is correct...this sets a precedent for a VERY specific burden of proof for these kinds of anti-trust cases. When it comes to quantifying damages for nebulous things like supra-competitive pricing, this seems like a BAD IDEA.

They aren't saying that people shouldn't have been lumped into the same class. SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs weren't able to specifically isolate damages to a specific cause (anti-competitive behavior preventing the entrance of over-builders in this case.) They had a model for damages, but it only spoke to the net effect of anti-competitive behavior and not the lack of over-builders entering the market specifically, which is why they ruled in favor of Comcast.

Yes, but isn't part of that inability to isolate precisely because they have so many people across the state covered by the suit that the causes vary considerably depending on which region you're talking about?

I'm not so convinced that this could be easily filed under "SCOTUS sides with corporations... again!"

It actually makes sense. If a class-action lawsuit was brought against ComCast with inadequately defined damages, it would most likely be thrown out - which would be an even bigger victory for ComCast.

So I look at this as SCOTUS saying "you should make sure you have your shit in order before filing the lawsuit."

It would be easier for me to agree with you if the decision wasn't 5-4. Presumably the same 5-4 we (almost) always see.

If the definition of a class needs to be very narrow, then that makes it much more challenging to finance a class-action lawsuit. Comcast has enourmous resources and resolve - much greater than any single county.

This ruling effectively allows monopolies to operate unchallenged by intentionally creating complexity in the market.

It's not. The decision points out, validly, that because there's no one cause for the damages amongst the "class," there is no class. In short, SCOTUS is saying the filing attorneys had cause, but they are multiple causes, requiring multiple classes in order to arbitrate correctly.

There's no real precedent being set here, except that the precedent now stands at the SCOTUS level as opposed to "just" in several Federal circuits.

EDIT: Scalia's personal politics and the way he brings them onto the job are disappointing, but painting him to be some sort of ultra-conservative boogeyman is unfair. Aside from a handful of situations where he concedes humanitarian concerns outweigh the "letter" of the law, Scalia is forthright and predictable about how he prepares and supports his decisions. His law clerks probably have the most boring jobs in the history of the SCOTUS, because there aren't any real left-field dingers to go after.

I'm amused and disheartened by the idea that if you just can screw over enough victims...erm "customers" in enough different ways, a class-action suit brought against you will fail regardless of merit. Doesn't this effectively break the legal system as a means of redressing civil wrongs?

That said, don't be a subscriber if you're not happy with your treatment. Maybe if more in the affected service area dropped their subscriptions in protest instead of just complaining & filing suit Comcast would toe the line better. After all, they're nominally a business... isn't it actually illegal for them to lose money by intent?

As for the SCOTUS decision... expecting anything other than either a de facto ruling for a corporate interest or hopeless muddying of the issue to prevent effective legislation/court action's bordering on completely irrational. Shouldn't be, but is.

Sad to see this. Charter in our area just dropped every decent broadband plan, so now we have 30mpbs for $55 a month or whatever 100mbps costs.

Alternatives? Att wants $31 a month for 768kbps DSL. Wow. It's pretty absurd when I get 4.5mbps with my 2 year old phone with Tmob, and they want $35 a month with no contract for a hot spot device, albeit not "unlimited" data.

So because a group of average citizens didn't come up with the logistics for completely covering damages covering hundreds of millions of dollars and explain how a multi-national corporation should handle their finances, Scalia drops the case?

Wouldn't it be up to the court to determine how Comcrap would have to handle the dissemination of those funds?

So the court's essentially saying that if you break the law using an intricate method with overlapping effects that are difficult to isolate, you've successfully beaten the system and you get away with it?

If you cannot explain to the justices clearly on how that intricate method works and how this affected the 2 million customers involved in the class action and have a sufficient model to reimburse those citizens; then yes they do get away with it. SCOTUS does not give you the benefit of the doubt on any subject matter; which is a shame as they had no choice but to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Scalia is pro-corporate, polititool but I agree that this article is sorely lacking in information.

Who agreed with the decision? Who dissented? Did anyone write separate concurrences? What was the prime argument of the dissent?

EDIT: Upon reading the references Chicago Tribune article (one where they actually give information). This is a pretty cut and dry case of Corporate America > American people. It's the exact same break down as Citizens United siding in favor of corporate interests.

Quote:

Ginsburg and Breyer said they would have dismissed the appeal, saying the court erred in reformulating the case to focus on issues that Comcast had not pressed in lower courts and which the subscribers did not have a fair chance to address.

The dissent also said the court erred in overturning factual findings made by two lower courts over whether the subscribers' damages model was legitimate.

It looks like we are all getting mad because the lawyers screwed this one up. Even more so the people constantly screw themselves by not using their buying power. You know because we all just HAVE to have electricity to watch XYZ. Living in the Philly area, DON'T USE EDISON! I have dropped ALL electric utilities and have been better for it.

The buyers have the power, but like morons choose not to use it. Redo the class action suit and try again. In the meantime stop paying for their crap and watch the price drop. If not, there are so many others things to do in life that using electricity is not high on the list of "must haves".

I replaced cable with electric and Comcast with Edison.

The way I see it, the internet should be a regulated utility like electric and gas. COMCAST can charge all the want for their cable TV but we should all have access to low cost, reliable internet. I suspect if this were to be the case, many people would abandon TV for internet and our cable companies wouldn't want that...

Sad to see this. Charter in our area just dropped every decent broadband plan, so now we have 30mpbs for $55 a month or whatever 100mbps costs.

Alternatives? Att wants $31 a month for 768kbps DSL. Wow. It's pretty absurd when I get 4.5mbps with my 2 year old phone with Tmob, and they want $35 a month with no contract for a hot spot device, albeit not "unlimited" data.

Better than my 68/mo for 15mbps.. my other choice is 3 mbs dsl for 30..

Sad to see this. Charter in our area just dropped every decent broadband plan, so now we have 30mpbs for $55 a month or whatever 100mbps costs.

Alternatives? Att wants $31 a month for 768kbps DSL. Wow. It's pretty absurd when I get 4.5mbps with my 2 year old phone with Tmob, and they want $35 a month with no contract for a hot spot device, albeit not "unlimited" data.

Last mile connectivity is expensive to build and maintain. This is a fact that will never change. DSL is limited by technology; so you can't fault AT&T for their DSL sucking. They've staked out the low-cost internet access with ADSL; and they offer U-Verse to compete with cable TV/internet packages.

These companies aren't making obscene profits either -- somewhere on the order of 10%; so they're not exactly price gouging. Take your monthly bill and knock 10% off -- is an extra $10-15/mo really going to do much for you?

If someone else could do it cheaper; they would. The fact that they haven't should be telling. Google Fiber is $70/mo so that's not really any cheaper. Yes, it's faster, but it's also brand-new technology while the cable/telco infrastructure is several decades old while still probably costing about the same to maintain.

Sad to see this. Charter in our area just dropped every decent broadband plan, so now we have 30mpbs for $55 a month or whatever 100mbps costs.

Alternatives? Att wants $31 a month for 768kbps DSL. Wow. It's pretty absurd when I get 4.5mbps with my 2 year old phone with Tmob, and they want $35 a month with no contract for a hot spot device, albeit not "unlimited" data.

Land internet could be going the way of cable tv ... essentially having such a fat ego that they drive folks away to alternatives, regardless of how painful those alternatives. A tethered smartphone with a generous data plan may be enough to lure some folks away.